국문목차
표제지=0,1,3
목차=i,4,2
그림 목차=iii,6,2
표 목차=v,8,1
ABSTRACT=vi,9,2
I. 서론=1,11,1
1.1 연구배경=1,11,1
1.2 연구목적=2,12,1
1.3 연구 방법=2,12,1
II. 본론=3,13,1
2.1 이론적 배경=3,13,1
2.1.1 Reverse Engineering=3,13,1
2.1.2 The Refind Method=3,13,2
2.1.3 항공기 성능 해석 과정=4,14,3
2.1.4 최소항력 계산=7,17,1
2.1.4.1 조파항력 계산=7,17,3
2.1.4.2 기타 항력 계산=9,19,6
2.1.5 양력/항력/모멘트 계산=15,25,1
2.2 계산 과정=16,26,1
2.2.1 Database Refine Method 적용=16,26,2
2.2.2 최소항력 계산=17,27,5
2.2.3 양항력 계수의 계산=22,32,11
2.3 결과 비교=33,43,2
III. 결론=35,45,1
참고 문헌=36,46,1
Fig.1. Target Aircraft(Left) and Baseline Aircraft(Right)=4,14,1
Fig.2. Aircraft Performance Analysis Process=6,16,1
Fig.3. Super Sonic Area Rule=8,18,1
Fig.4. RW-B(M,RLfuselage)plot(이미지참조)=12,22,1
Fig.5. RLS(M,Λ) plot(이미지참조)=13,23,1
Fig.6. Application the Database Refine Method=16,26,1
Fig.7. The Pods Division=17,27,1
Fig.8. Section Cut to Pod=18,28,1
Fig.9. Fuselage Input Format=18,28,1
Fig.10. Wing Input Format=18,28,1
Fig.11. The OML and the Harris Pod Representation of The Target Aircraft=19,29,1
Fig.12. Normal Area Distribution of the Target Aircraft=19,29,1
Fig.13. The Area Distributions per Different Mach Numbers=20,30,1
Fig.14. Harris Pod Representation and the OML comparison of the Target(Left) and the Baseline(Right) Aircraft=20,30,1
Fig.15. The result of Minimum Drag(CD0.0) - after the Refinement(이미지참조)=21,31,1
Fig.16. Panel Grid=22,32,1
Fig.17. The Close Up of Wing and HT Grid=23,33,1
Fig.18. Grid Generation for Control Surfaces=23,33,1
Fig.19. The Panel Array and the Panel Grid of the Target Aircraft=24,34,1
Fig.20. The HT Array=25,35,1
Fig.21. LEF Scheduling 과정:(a) Max L/D Points (b) Computer Optimized LEF Scheduling (c) Aerodynamicist Optimized LEF Scheduling (d) LEF Scheduling Completed=26,36,1
Fig.22. CLvs. CDLift and CLvs. α@M0.2(이미지참조)=27,37,1
Fig.23. CLvs. CDLift and CLvs. α@M0.6(이미지참조)=28,38,1
Fig.24. CLvs. CDLift and CLvs. α@M0.8(이미지참조)=29,39,1
Fig.25. CLvs. CDLift and CLvs. α@M0.85(이미지참조)=30,40,1
Fig.26. CLvs. CDLift and CLvs. α@M0.9(이미지참조)=31,41,1
Fig.27. CLvs. CDLift and CLvs. α@M0.95(이미지참조)=32,42,1
Fig.28./(34.) The Performance Index Comparison=33,43,1
Table1. Interference Factors for Different Cases=13,23,1